Latest AI News
Copilot is ‘for entertainment purposes only,’ according to Microsoft’s terms of use
AI skeptics aren’t the only ones warning users not to unthinkingly trust models’ outputs — that’s what the AI companies say themselves in their terms of service. Take Microsoft, which is currentlyfocused on getting corporate customers to pay for Copilot. But it’s also been getting dinged on social media overCopilot’s terms of use, which appear to have been last updated on October 24, 2025. “Copilot is for entertainment purposes only,” the company warned. “It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.” A Microsoft spokespersontold PCMagthat the company will be updating what they described as “legacy language.” “As the product has evolved, that language is no longer reflective of how Copilot is used today and will be altered with our next update,” the spokesperson said. Tom’s Hardware notedthat Microsoft isn’t the only company using this kind of disclaimer for AI. For example, bothOpenAIandxAIcaution users that they should not rely on their output as “the truth” (to quote xAI) or as “a sole service of truth or factual information” (OpenAI).
View
In Japan, the robot isn’t coming for your job; it’s filling the one nobody wants
Physical AI is emerging as one of the next major industrial battlegrounds, with Japan’s push driven more by necessity than anything else. With workforces shrinking and pressure mounting to sustain productivity, companies are increasingly deploying AI-powered robots across factories, warehouses, and critical infrastructure. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industrysaidin March 2026 that it aims to build a domestic physical AI sector and capture a 30% share of the global market by 2040. The country already holds a strong position in industrial robotics, with Japanese manufacturers accounting for about 70% of the global market in 2022,according to the ministry. Based on conversations with investors and industry executives, TechCrunch explored what’s driving that shift, how Japan’s approach differs from the U.S. and China, and where value is likely to emerge as the technology matures. Several factors are driving adoption in Japan, including cultural acceptance of robotics, labor shortages driven by demographic pressures, and deep industrial strength in mechatronics and hardware supply chains, Woven Capital managing director Ro Gupta told TechCrunch. “Physical AI is being bought as a continuity tool: how do you keep factories, warehouses, infrastructure, and service operations running with fewer people?” Hogil Doh, Global Brain general partner, also said. “From what I’m seeing, labor shortages are the primary driver.” Japan’sdemographiccrunch is accelerating. The population declined fora 14th straight year in 2024; those of working agemake up just to 59.6%of the total, a share projected to shrink by nearly 15 million over the next 20 years, Doh pointed out. It’s already reshaping how companies operate:a 2024 Reuters/Nikkei surveyfound labor shortages are the main force pushing Japanese firms to adopt AI. “The driver has shifted from simple efficiency to industrial survival,” Sho Yamanaka, a principal with Salesforce Ventures, said in an interview with TechCrunch. “Japan faces a physical supply constraint where essential services cannot be sustained due to a lack of labor. Given the shrinking working-age population, physical AI is a matter of national urgency to maintain industrial standards and social services.” Japan is stepping up efforts to advance automation across manufacturing and logistics, according to Mujin CEO and co-founder Issei Takino. The government has been promoting automation to address structural challenges such as labor shortages. Mujin, a Japanese company, has built software that lets industrial robots handle picking and logistics tasks autonomously. Mujin’s approach centers on software — specifically robotics control platforms — that allows existing hardware to perform more autonomously and efficiently, Takino said. Where Japan has historically excelled is in the physical building blocks of robotics. Whether that advantage translates into the AI era is a more open question. The country continues to demonstrate strength in core robotics components such as actuators, sensors and control systems, according to Japan-based venture capitalists, while the U.S. and China are moving more quickly todevelop full-stack systemsthat integrate hardware, software and data. “Japan’s expertise in high-precision components – the critical physical interface between AI and the real world – is a strategic moat,” Yamanaka said. “Controlling this touchpoint provides a significant competitive advantage in the global supply chain. The current priority is to accelerate system-level optimization by integrating AI models deeply with this hardware.” Hardware capabilities are strongest in China and Japan, with Japan particularly strong in robot motion control, while the U.S. leads in the service layer and market development, Takino said. Historically, many U.S. companies have leveraged their software strengths to build integrated businesses – similar to Apple – pairing strong software platforms with high-quality hardware sourced from Asia. However, this model may not fully translate to the emerging world of physical AI, Takino said. “In robotics, and especially in Physical AI, it is critical to have a deep understanding of the physical characteristics of hardware,” Takino said. “This requires not only software capabilities, but also highly specialized control technologies, which take significant time to develop and involve high costs of failure.” WHILL, a Tokyo- and San Francisco-based startup that makes autonomous personal mobility vehicles, is drawing on Japan’s “monozukuri,” or craftsmanship heritage, as it takes a broader, full-stack approach to global expansion, CEO Satoshi Sugie told TechCrunch. The company has developed an integrated platform combining electric vehicles, onboard sensors, navigation systems and cloud-based fleet management for short-distance and autonomous transport. The company is leveraging both Japan and the U.S. for development, using Japan to refine hardware and address aging population needs, and the U.S. to accelerate software development and test large-scale commercial models, Sugie noted. The government is putting money behind the push. Under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Japan has committed about$6.3 billion to strengthen core AI capabilities, advance robotics integration and support industrial deployment. The shift from experimentation to real deployment is already underway. Industrial automation remains the most advanced segment, with Japaninstalling tens of thousands of robots each year, particularly in the automotive sector. Newer applications are also beginning to gain traction, Doh said. “The signal is simple – customer-paid deployments rather than vendor-funded trials, reliable operation across full shifts, and measurable performance metrics such as uptime, human intervention rates and productivity impact,” Doh said. In logistics, companies are deploying automated forklifts and warehouse systems, while in facilities management, inspection robots are being used in data centers and industrial sites. Companies likeSoftBankare already applying physical AI in practice, combining vision-language models with real-time control systems to enable robots to interpret environments and execute complex tasks autonomously. In defense, where autonomous systems are becoming foundational, competitiveness will depend not just on platforms but on operational intelligence powered by physical AI, Terra Drone CEO Toru Tokushige told TechCrunch. Tokushige added that by combining operational data with AI, Terra Drone is working to enable autonomous systems to function reliably in real-world environments and support the advancement of Japan’s defense infrastructure. Investment is shifting beyond hardware, with companies allocating more capital to orchestration software, digital twins, simulation tools and integration platforms, according to investors and industry sources. Japan’s physical AI ecosystem is also evolving in ways that differ from traditional tech disruption models. Rather than a winner-take-all dynamic, industry participants expect a hybrid model, with established companies providing scale and reliability, while startups drive innovation in software and system design. Large incumbents, including Toyota Motor Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric, and Honda Motor, retain significant advantages in manufacturing scale, customer relationships, and deployment capabilities. But startups are carving out critical roles in emerging areas such as orchestration software, perception systems, and workflow automation. “The relationship between startups and established corporations is a mutually complementary ecosystem,” Yamanaka said. “Robotics requires heavy hardware development, deep operational know-how, and significant capital expenditure. By fusing the vast assets and domain expertise of major corporations with the disruptive innovation of startups, the industry can strengthen its collective global competitiveness.” Japan’s defense ecosystem is also shifting away from dominance by large corporations toward greater collaboration with startups, the Terra Drone CEO said. Large companies remain focused on platforms, scale and integration, while startups are driving development in smaller systems, software and operations, with speed and adaptability becoming key competitive factors. Companies like Mujin are developing platforms that sit above hardware, enabling multi-vendor automation and faster deployment across industries. Others, including Terra Drone, are applying similar approaches to autonomous systems, combining AI and operational data to support real-world applications at scale. “The most defensible value will sit with whoever owns deployment, integration, and continuous improvement,” Doh said.
View
Can orbital data centers help justify a massive valuation for SpaceX?
SpaceX hasreportedly filed confidential paperworkfor an initial public offering in which the company would raise $75 billion at a $1.75 trillion valuation. And according to CEO Elon Musk, orbital data centers will be a big part of SpaceX’s future. On the latest episode ofTechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed Musk’s vision, as well as other companies that are pursuing similar goals. It will takesignificant tech development and massive capital spendingto make orbital data centers a reality, but as Sean noted, with “opposition happening around the country to data centers in general,” executives like Musk and Jeff Bezos may be thinking, “The engineering challenge may be less than the social challenge back here” on Earth. Read a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity, below. Sean:This has been a trend — I would say a rapidly forming trend — over the last half year to a year, and we have different examples of it. We have SpaceX; I feel like in some ways, Elon Musk was late on this trend. And for the moment, let’s set aside the actual mechanics and the viability of data centers in space. We could talk about that in a second if we want, but — Kirsten:We have a really good storywe’ll link to in the show notes, by the way. One of our most recent hires, Tim Fernholz, is amazing. He writes all about the physics and the constraints of that. Sean:Yeah, I think it’s a really interesting engineering challenge. It’s a really interesting physics challenge. It’s a really interesting orbital mechanics challenge. But it’s something that clearly a bunch of companies and people are going to try and chase. [There’s] going to be SpaceX doing it, with a kind of variance of what they’re already working on with their Starlink network. There’s a startup that had come out of Y Combinator, originally called Starcloud, that was really one of the first ones out there trying to build a huge business around this, thatjust raised $170 million this week, their valuation [on] that tipped them over into a unicorn status. Jeff Bezos is trying to go after this as well. This is a next generation version of the competition that we’ve seen happening between Starlink and Amazon’s Leo satellite network, and Blue Origin has its own satellite network coming online as well in the next couple of years. So there’s going to be a whole bunch of this happening, and it feels like it wasn’t happening a year ago. I know the way that Elon Musk pitches it is — we know he’s allergic to red tape, he’s built a data center in Memphis, too. Maybe now he knows the challenges and the risks you have to take to sidestep that red tape. There’s a lot of opposition happening around the country to data centers in general. And these people say, “We have access to space, so let’s just try and do it up there.” The engineering challenge may be less than the social challenge back here on our [planet]. Kirsten:And it also creates excitement, right? If a company is about to go [public] and they’re working on data centers in space, this is something that people can have expectations about in a positive way and ignore the constraints. It feels like a company that is working on something that’s not old and outdated, but signals the future. And it’s really a great strategy when you think about it. Anthony:Not that Elon Musk is the only one who does this, but it seems like he’s incredibly successful at being like, “Don’t judge my companies based on how much money they’re making now, judge them based on these grand visions that I can spin out about what will happen in the future.” And going back to a point that Sean was making, I think that part of what’s interesting is to [ask]: How does this fit in with the broader data center rollout? How does it fit in with opposition and the idea that maybe people are not going to be able to build as many data centers as they want to? I don’t think any of us are engineers who can really assess the viability of these plans. It does certainly have a tinge of fantasy to it, but even when they do lay out these plans, it feels like just a drop in the bucket in terms of compute capabilities compared to what they want to build out on Earth. So it feels like there’s not a scenario where this replaces a whole bunch of new data centers on Earth. It’s just sort of a […] supplement to it. Sean:The last two things I’ll point out that are really front and center for me is, one, we’ve seen a backing off in some ways [from] data centers — not just because of opposition, but because maybe we don’t need as much, right? We see a bunch of jockeying from some of the AI labs about, “Well, maybe we don’t need to lease this much from this company,” or whatever. And if that becomes a thing that is more true than it was five months ago, do you all of a sudden lose all that momentum to do something as crazy as putting the data centers in space? Providing that it works, even. The other thing is that the idea of building these massive data centers in space, with all these satellites that make up the quote unquote “data center,” is business for SpaceX. And I think this is unique to them compared to these other companies: They are a launch company primarily, even though they generate a bunch of revenue from Starlink. They are the vehicle that gets the data centers to space. They get to book that as revenue for SpaceX. And so it becomes this thing where, of course [Musk] wants — whether or not it works, he would eventually have to prove it — but of course he wants to send more and more satellites into space because it’s more revenue for SpaceX. And that makes SpaceX look better as a public company. And then you just kind of tumble down the path until he finds something else to pitch the investors on. Loading the player…
View
Google, OpenAI Take The Fight to the Cricket Field, and Between Overs
Sponsoring cricket tournaments allows AI companies like Google and OpenAI to tap into younger audiences.
View
Anthropic says Claude Code subscribers will need to pay extra for OpenClaw usage
It’s about to become more expensive for Claude Code subscribers to use Anthropic’s coding assistant with OpenClaw and other third-party tools. According to a customer emailshared on Hacker News, Anthropic said that starting at noon Pacific on April 4 (today), subscribers will “no longer be able to use your Claude subscription limits for third-party harnesses including OpenClaw.” Instead, they’ll need to pay for extra usage through “a pay-as-you-go option billed separately from your subscription.” The company said that while it’s starting with OpenClaw today, the policy “applies to all third-party harnesses and will be rolled out to more shortly.” Anthropic’s head of Claude Code Boris Chernywrote on Xthat the company’s “subscriptions weren’t built for the usage patterns of these third-party tools” and thatAnthropic is now trying“to be intentional in managing our growth to continue to serve our customers sustainably long-term.” The announcement comes after OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger said he wasjoining Anthropic rival OpenAI, with OpenClaw continuing as an open source project with support from OpenAI. Steinberger postedthat he and OpenClaw board member Dave Morin “tried to talk sense into Anthropic” but were only able to delay the increased pricing by a week. “Funny how timings match up, first they copy some popular features into their closed harness, then they lock out open source,” Steinberger said. Cherny, however,insistedthat Claude Code team members are “big fans of open source” and that he himself “just put up a few [pull requests] to improve prompt cache efficiency for OpenClaw specifically.” “This is more about engineering constraints,” he said, adding that Anthropic is still offering full refunds for subscribers. “We know not everyone realized this isn’t something we support, and this is an attempt to make it clear and explicit.” Meanwhile, OpenAI recentlyshut down its Sora app and video generation models, reportedly to free up computing resources and as part of a broader effort to refocus on winning over the software engineers and enterprises that are increasingly relying on products like Claude Code.
View
Anthropic to Stop Covering OpenClaw, Other Third-Party Tools Under Claude Subscriptions
Users will still be able to access such tools using their Claude accounts, but usage will be billed separately under a pay-as-you-go model.
View
OpenAI’s New Product Isn’t a Frontier Model—It’s Influence
OpenAI’s acquisition of popular AI and tech podcast TBPN gives the ChatGPT maker more direct control over how it markets its models.
View
Anthropic is having a moment in the private markets; SpaceX could spoil the party
Glen Anderson has been brokering trades in private company shares since 2010, back when the number of institutional investors focused on the late-stage private market could be counted on two hands. Today, he says, there are thousands. As president of the investment bank Rainmaker Securities, which focuses solely on private securities markets and facilitates transactions in roughly 1,000 stocks, Anderson has a front-row seat to one of the most nail-bitingly large moments in the history of the secondary market. And right now, he suggests, the narrative has three main characters: Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX. The upshot: the storyline is more complicated than the headlines suggest. Anderson’s read on Anthropic is consistent with what Bloombergreportedearlier this week: demand for the company’s shares has become almost insatiable. Bloomberg quoted Ken Smythe, founder and CEO of Next Round Capital, saying that buyers had indicated to his outfit that they had $2 billion of cash ready to deploy into Anthropic, even as roughly $600 million in OpenAI shares that investors are trying to sell haven’t found takers. Anderson sees something similar at Rainmaker. “The hardest stock to source in our marketplace is Anthropic,” he told TechCrunch yesterday afternoon from his Miami home. “There’s just no sellers.” Part of what turbocharged that demand, Anderson argues, was Anthropic’svery public standoffwith the Department of Defense — a turn of events that initially seemed like bad news for the company but has wound up becoming a gift. “The app got more popular, people rallied around the company as kind of a hero, taking on big government,” he said. “I think it amplified the story and made it even more differentiated from OpenAI.” That distinction is becoming increasingly meaningful to investors navigating a market where, for years, the prevailing logic was to bet on everyone. Anderson notes that many institutional investors still want exposure to both Anthropic and OpenAI. “The jury’s still out,” he said, on which AI model will ultimately win – but the momentum, at least in the secondary market, has shifted. That doesn’t mean OpenAI has fallen off a cliff. Anderson pushes back slightly on a binary reading of the situation. “I wouldn’t say it’s a one-or-the-other conversation,” he said. But the excitement isn’t there. “It’s not nearly as vibrant a market as Anthropic right now,” he acknowledged. On valuation, Anderson broadly confirmed Bloomberg’s reporting that OpenAI shares on the secondary market are trading as if the company were valued at $765 billion — an appreciable discount to the company’s newest $852 billion primary-round valuation. He cautioned that he was working from memory, but said the Bloomberg figure was “in the right range.” OpenAI itself has tried to assert more control over secondary trading. “People should be extremely cautious of any firm that purports to have access to OpenAI equity, including through an SPV,” an OpenAI spokesperson told Bloomberg, noting the company had established authorized channels through banks, with no fees, to counter what it described as a high-fee broker model. Perhaps tellingly — at least for now — banks including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have begun offering OpenAI shares to their high-net-worth clients without charging carry fees, according to Bloomberg. Goldman, meanwhile, is charging its customary carry – often 15% to 20% of profits – for clients seeking Anthropic exposure. What none of this accounts for is SpaceX, which stands apart amid shifting sentiment around these other powerful brands. Anderson describes it as one of the only names in Rainmaker’s universe that never experienced the punishing correction that hit much of the private market between 2022 and 2024, a period when many private companies’ shares fell 60% to 70% from their peaks (after their valuations were run up just as fast). The rocket and satellite behemoth has “been pretty much consistently up and to the right,” Anderson said. Anderson, who, naturally, has an economic interest in flattering the company and its earlier backers, credits SpaceX’s management with disciplined pricing and not squeezing every last dollar out of each funding round or tender offer. “A lot of companies will fall for the temptation to maximize the price of their stock in every round,” he said. “The problem is that that doesn’t leave any room for error.” SpaceX, by contrast, played it conservatively, by “not getting too greedy,” and the payoff for earlier investors has been enormous. “You can imagine if someone got in in 2015 what kind of gain they’re sitting on right now,” said Anderson. To put a finer point on that comment: SpaceX was valued at roughly $12 billion in 2015, when Google and Fidelity jointly invested $1 billion in the company. Someone who got in at that price is now sitting on a gain of more than 100x, with the company valued at more than $1 trillion ahead of its planned IPO. That IPO is now imminent, seemingly. SpaceX filedconfidentiallythis week for an initial public offering, setting the stage for what could be one of the largest market debuts in history, with Elon Musk reportedly aiming to raise between $50 billion and $75 billion, possibly in June. Only Saudi Aramco’s 2019 debut, which valued the energy giant at $1.7 trillion, has come close. Unsurprisingly, the rumored filing has already changed the dynamics of the secondary market for SpaceX shares, according to Anderson. “Today, I saw a flood of SpaceX investors coming to me saying, ‘Can you give me SpaceX?’” he noted. “It’s been a very active buy side.” But supply is drying up. The closer a company gets to an IPO, the less incentive existing shareholders have to sell because they can see the liquidity event on the horizon. That’s where things get a little dicier for OpenAI and Anthropic. Both companies are reportedly exploring public offerings of their own and have signaled they could move this year. But SpaceX, by filing first, is about to test the market’s appetite in a major way, and Anderson suggested that whoever follows will be at a disadvantage. “SpaceX is going to soak up a lot of liquidity,” he said flatly. “There’s only so much money out there allocated to IPOs.” The first mover gets to the trough first; those who follow face both more scrutiny and, potentially, less capital. It’s a dynamic that plays out in every so-called vertical and from which the AI companies aren’t completely immune, despite the attention being showered on them right now. Time your IPO too early and you’re the one testing market receptivity. Wait for someone else to go first, and you may find the biggest checks have already been written. You can hear more of our interview with Anderson in the upcoming episode of theStrictlyVC Downloadpodcast, which drops every Tuesday. In the meantime, check out recent episodes, including those with Whoop CEO Will Ahmed and investor Bill Gurley.
View
AI companies are building huge natural gas plants to power data centers. What could go wrong?
Who doesn’t love a good round of FOMO? From dot-com to Web 2.0, virtual reality to blockchain, the tech industry has had its share of being too afraid to miss out on a trend. The AI bubble is the big daddy of them all. Its first offspring — the rush tolock down power for data centers— is now begetting a mad dash to secure natural gas supplies and equipment. If FOMOs could have babies, then the AI bubble is already having grandkids. Microsoft said on Tuesday that it’s working with Chevron and Engine No. 1 tobuild a natural gas power plantin West Texas that could grow to produce 5 gigawatts of electricity. This week Googleconfirmedthat it’s working with Crusoe to build a 933 MW natural gas power plant in North Texas. And last week, Meta announced that it was adding another seven natural gas power plants to its Hyperion data center in Louisiana, bringing the site to 7.46 GW of capacity —enough to power the entire state of South Dakota. Are we missing anyone? The recent investments are concentrated in the southern U.S., home to some of the largest natural gas deposits in the world. Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there’s enough in one region to supply energy to the entire United States for10 monthsby itself. Every data center operator seems to want a part of it. The scramble for natural gas has led to a shortage of turbines for the power plants, with prices likely to rise 195% by the end of this year relative to 2019 prices,accordingto Wood Mackenzie. The equipment contributes 20% to 30% of the cost of a power plant. Companies won’t be able to place new orders until 2028, and it’s taking six years to get turbines delivered, the consultancy notes. That means tech companies are betting that the AI fever won’t break, that AI will continue to needexponential amounts of power, and that natural gas generation will be necessary for success in the AI era. They may come to regret that third assumption. Though natural gas supplies in the U.S. are plentiful, and because shipping the fuel isn’t cheap, the country remains somewhat insulated from the turmoil in the Middle East. But supplies aren’t unlimited, and recently, growth in production in the big three regions — responsible for three-quarters of all U.S. shale gas production — hasslowed considerably. It’s not clear how insulated tech companies are from price swings since none of them have disclosed specific terms of their agreements. A lot will depend on how firm the price is in those contracts. Even if the contracted prices are as firm as can be, the companies could still face repercussions. Because natural gas generates about 40% of the electricity in the U.S.,accordingto the Energy Information Administration, electricity prices are closely tied to natural gas prices. Tech companies might be able to shield themselves from scrutiny for a bit by moving their gas power plants behind the meter — by skipping the grid and connecting them directly to their data centers. But natural gas isn’t an unlimited resource, and if their ambitions grow too big, even the behind-the-meter operations could drive up power prices for everyone. We’ve all seen how that’s played out. It won’t just be regular households getting upset either. Other industries, including those that remain much more dependent on natural gas and can’t yet turn to renewables, might balk at data centers grabbing so much of the resource. Powering a data center with wind, solar, and batteries is easy. Running a petrochemical plant? Not so much. Then there’s the weather. One cold winter could change the calculus by driving up demand among households. Wellheads might freeze off, crimping supplies dramatically,as happened in Texasin 2021. When gas runs short, suppliers will face a choice: keep the AI data centers running or let people heat their homes? By snapping up natural gas supplies and moving behind-the-meter, tech companies can claim that they’re “bringing their own power” and not straining the electrical grid. But in reality, they’re just shifting their use from one grid to another, the natural gas grid. The AI rush has illustrated just how physically constrained the digital world remains. Does it make sense for them to bet big on a finite resource? Tech companies might regret falling for the FOMO.
View
Anthropic ramps up its political activities with a new PAC
Anthropic has filed documents to create a new political action committee — a sign that, like its peers, the AI lab is committing significant resources toward influencing policy and regulation. AnthroPAC plans to make contributions to both parties during the midterms, including to current D.C. lawmakers and rising political candidates. The PAC will be funded by voluntary employee contributions capped at $5,000,Bloomberg reports. Astatement of organizationfiled with the Federal Election Commission includes a signature by Allison Rossi, Anthropic’s treasurer. TechCrunch reached out to Anthropic for more information. AI companies, which are comrades and competitors in a new and often turbulent industry, have increasingly sought to push their preferred policies at the state and federal levels. The Washington Postreportedlast month that AI companies had already contributed a whopping $185 million to the midterm races. In February, The New York Times alsoreportedon Public First, a new Super PAC that had reportedly received at least $20 million from Anthropic, and which had financed ad campaigns supporting a particular regulatory agenda. Anthropic’s political activities have ramped up as the company continues to be enmeshedin a nasty legal battlewith the Defense Department. The dispute erupted earlier this year over the government’s use of Anthropic’s AI models and what guidelines (if any) should exist for that usage.
View
Anthropic buys biotech startup Coefficient Bio in $400M deal: Reports
Anthropic has purchased the stealth biotech AI startup Coefficient Bio in a $400 million stock deal, according toThe InformationandEric Newcomer. Sources close to the deal confirmed to TechCrunch that it closed, though declined to comment on the amount. The deal comes as Anthropic continues its push into healthcare and life sciences, following itsOctober announcement ofClaude for Life Sciences, a tool that aims to help scientific researchers make discoveries. Coefficient Bio’s founders, Samuel Stanton and Nathan C. Frey, launched the startup eight months ago, having both worked in computational drug discovery at Genentech’s Prescient Design. Coefficient Bio was using AI to help make drug discovery and other forms of biological research more efficient. The team, consisting of around 10 people, is expected to join Anthropic’s health and life science team.
View
OpenAI executive shuffle includes new role for COO Brad Lightcap to lead ‘special projects’
A handful of OpenAI executives are transitioning into new roles, according to a report fromBloomberg. An OpenAI spokesperson confirmed the personnel changes to TechCrunch. CEO of AGI development Fidji Simo announced in a memo that Brad Lightcap, OpenAI’s COO, has a new job leading “special projects,” which will involve “complex deals and investments across the company.” He will report directly to CEO Sam Altman. Denise Dresser, the former Slack CEO whorecently joinedOpenAI as chief revenue officer, will take over some of Lightcap’s commercial duties. NEW: OpenAI’s Fidji Simo announced exec changes to staff today: she is taking medical leave for several weeks, COO Brad Lightcap is transitioning to a new role, and CMO Kate Rouch is stepping down to focus on her cancer recovery.More here:https://t.co/EfAqZI7jN3pic.twitter.com/KmWoXUG0Iu Simo also had news of her own to share: She will be taking medical leave for the next several weeks to navigate a neuroimmune condition. “I have done everything possible to avoid it, but sadly my body isn’t cooperating,” Simo wrote in the memo obtained by Bloomberg. “The timing is maddening because we have such an exciting roadmap ahead that the team is executing on, and I hate to miss even a minute of it,” she said. While she is on leave, OpenAI co-founder and president Greg Brockman will manage product. Kate Rouch, OpenAI’s marketing head, will also be stepping down from her role to focus on cancer recovery, but will return to a “different, more narrowly scoped role when her health allows,” the memo said. The company plans to search for a new CMO. “We have a strong leadership team focused on our biggest priorities: advancing frontier research, growing our global user base of nearly 1 billion users, and powering enterprise use cases,” OpenAI told TechCrunch in a statement. “We’re well-positioned to keep executing with continuity and momentum.” Update, 4/3/26, 6:25 PM ET with additional context around Dresser’s role.
View
